Beatie v. Beatie (USA)

An Arizona Appeals Court ruled that the marriage of Thomas Beatie and Nancy J. Beatie was valid and could be dissolved by divorce. A previous court had ruled that Beatie, who is female, was legally female because he had not been sterilized and because he had given birth to the couple’s children, and therefore held their marriage was invalid because of Arizona’s ban on same-sex marriage.

5 thoughts on “Beatie v. Beatie (USA)”

As to the marriage and divorce, if opposite and same sex couples could marry, this issue would be moot. They could just marry and divorce like anyone else. Beatie, “the pregnant man” has always confused me. Because she legally changed her sex to “male”, she was allowed to marry her female partner. She gave birth to three children AFTER legally changing her sex to male. Indeed, she states that she kept her female reproductive system intact so she could get pregnant. They were all through artificial insemination, so they were definitenly planned pregnacies. After doing this, Beatie hit the talk show circuit. No male can become pregnant, so it was rather disengenous and ludicrous to refer to Beatie as “the pregnant man”.

“As Nancy was unable to have children, the couple ultimately agreed Thomas would be the child-bearer as his genital surgery was not yet completed. Thomas eventually gave birth to three children in Oregon between 2008 and 2010. As regards Thomas’s continued ability to bear children, Dr. Brownstein testified child-bearing by a transgendered male does not revoke his transgendered status. Nancy legally adopted the children, and the children’s birth certificates reflect Nancy as their mother and Thomas as their father.”

This is how Orwellian it’s become. Read this again…

“As regards Thomas’s continued ability to bear children, Dr. Brownstein testified child-bearing by a transgendered male does not revoke his transgendered status. Nancy legally adopted the children, and the children’s birth certificates reflect Nancy as their mother and Thomas as their father.”

Beatie is NOT a male, and has never been male. Males do not get pregnant and give birth to children. Beatie gave birth to three children after legally changing her sex to “male”. She went through pregnancy like any other female, and gave birth like other females. According to what I’ve read, Beatie went off testosterone during her three pregnancies. So, technically, how could she be trans and “male” when she was off testosterone because of pregnancy? We are to believe that she became male when she underwent “top surgery” to remove her breasts and started taking testosterone. Then, she intentionally became pregnant three times via artificial insemination. During the pregnancy, she had to stop the testosterone. During her three pregnancies, I’m sure she received routine prenatal care like other females. Rational people are supposed to believe that none of this matters.

Beatie is a perfect example of why no human should be allowed to legally change his or her sex. Humans and non-human primates can’t change their sex. In my opinion, the only people who should be allowed to legally change their sex are individuals with actual disorders of sexual development that can be verified through genetic testing or other medical tests. When it’s clear that the individual is biological female, or biological male, it flies in the face of common sense to declare that they actually change their sex.

Thomas Beatie is not the first FTM to get pregnant after declaring herself “male”.

In my opinion, the Beatie case goes beyond simple marriage and divorce. How can states declare that pregnant women and biological mothers are “male”? It is a biological impossibility for Beatie to be both mother and father of the three children she gave birth to.

Again, as to the marriage, both opposite and same sex couples should be allowed to marry. If this were the case, the divorce issue would be moot.

To state that Beatie has taken full advantage of her female reproductive system would be an understatement. I don’t have anything against motherhood and children, but please stop pretending that Beaite is “male”. Stop referring to this woman as “he”. She gave birth to three babies after legally changing her sex to “male”. Then, after “bottom surgery”, or she just doesn’t want to go through pregnancy again, Beatie and new wife come up with a brilliant plan whereby Beatie is the egg donor.

“They say they fell in love on their first date and quickly decided they wanted to add to their family with their own baby. But how they conceived is something that will surprise you. Beatie underwent fertility treatments. It was Beatie, the man, whose eggs were harvested, so they could be fertilized with donor sperm and implanted in Nicholas.

They decided to use his eggs rather than Nicolas’ because at age 43 she’s three years older than him and they felt his eggs would be more viable. Now, Nicholas is 12 weeks pregnant.”

Males don’t get pregnant, and they certainly can’t donate eggs for fertilization. Could years of testosterone effect Beatie’s eggs? If the new wife and Beatie wanted another child, the best option probably would be to find a healthy young egg donor, or adopt. Beatie already has three biological children she gave birth to. Why does she want more children? Genetically, the new wife is contributing nothing to the child she is carrying. In a sense, she is just an incubator of sorts. The egg donor is Beatie, and the sperm donor is an unknown male.

Beatie is a perfect example of why no human should be allowed to legally change his or her sex. Certain exceptions could be made for people with actual disorders of sexual development (intersex), but when it’s clear that the individual is biological female or biological male, it’s ridiculous to play along with this p.c. game. No one really believes that males can give birth or donate eggs. The only reason people refer to Beatie as “he” is because this has been shoved down our throats. There are limits to what our species can, or should do, and the envelope is being pushed too far.